PEOPLE vs.

MENESES
GR No. 111742
March 26, 1998

FACTS:

Herein accused-appellant, Roman Meneses was charged with the murder of Cesar
Victoria. The information provides that at around three o'clock in the morning, victim was
stabbed to death while sleeping by his seven-year old son Christopher Victoria in a rented
makeshift room in Tondo, Manila.

The Prosecution presented four witnesses, one of which is the victim's son. He
testified that he was awakened from sleep and saw his father being stabbed in the heart
with a veinte nueve and after the assailant ran away, he cried. SPO3 Mendoza, one of
the police officers who conducted the investigation, testified that Christopher could not
identify nor describe the attacker, but the child said he could identify him because he
knew his face. SPO3 Gonzales, on the other hand, testified that they arrested appellant
based on the report of Angelina Victoria, the appellant's wife, who implicated appellant in
the crime.

The judgment of the lower court upon appellant's conviction is anchored entirely
on the testimony of the single eyewitness, Christopher Victoria, who identified appellant
as the one who he allegedly saw stab his father.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the child is credible as an eyewitness.

HELD:

No. The Court finds that the trustworthiness of the identification of appellant by
Christopher Victoria is dubious, raising reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as to
appellant's culpability.

In the case at bar, the crime took place in a makeshift room. It is highly improbable
that a young boy, just roused from sleep and his eyes adjusting to the unit room, could
identify the attacker. Christopher could not name his father's attacker nor give a
description when he testified, but when he saw the appellant during a "show up"
investigation by the police, he identified Roman Meneses, as the perpetrator. Thus, he
knew the appellant prior to the crime, being his uncle, whom he stayed with for some
time, but failed to point appellant as the attacker when questioned by the police
immediately after the incident.

The Court explicitly explained that when a person has been a victim of the crime
committed by a friend, relative, or other person previously familiar to him, and decides to
make a complaint to the police, it is to be expected that he would immediately inform them
of the name of the person they should arrest. The occasional failure of a complaint to do
this is a danger signal of which the courts have sometimes taken note.